top | item 42381436

(no title)

openthc | 1 year ago

Another thing that kinds of sucks about this whole "license rug-pull" kind of business is that other teams (like ours) who are publishing open-source software/tools are now suspects too.

Folk ask themselves, why contribute to this thing (MIT/GPL licenses) if there some for-profit entity involved?

Folk can't take us at face-value (I'd argue demonstrated value) and level (unfounded) accusations at us; because some other player did things "dirty".

Well, other folk wanted to pay for support/customisation and in USA you make a for-profit entity to do that. So the corporate part of the open-source project is, nearly, a requirement.

discuss

order

weinzierl|1 year ago

"Folk ask themselves, why contribute to this thing (MIT/GPL licenses) if there some for-profit entity involved?"

You put MIT or GPL in the same bucket here, but really shouldn't because the difference is all that matters.

There is no "rug-pull" as you call it. What happened with Redis is what the BSD license allows and what people should expect to happen.

The combination of GPL (or AGPL) with a large enough and diverse set of contributors who keep their rights in their contributions is a proven way to prevent what happened with Redis.

It is our decision as publishers of open-source projects which way we want to go. It is our decision as contributors which open-source projects we support.

Both ways are fine, but blaming others that you regret your decision is not.

homebrewer|1 year ago

> The combination of GPL (or AGPL) with a large enough and diverse set of contributors who keep their rights in their contributions is a proven way to prevent what happened with Redis.

Also the lack of a CLA (and/or copyright assignment) because many "modern" projects under the GPL ask you to waive your rights away, thus nullifying the license. Do not contribute to them if you have any self-respect.

https://drewdevault.com/2021/04/12/DCO.html

hellcow|1 year ago

Mongo was AGPL until 2018. The AGPL didn’t stop Amazon from abusing the open source social contract, hence why Mongo modified the license.

liveoneggs|1 year ago

The BSD license doesn't allow changing it to another license any more or less than GPL.

Osiris|1 year ago

I look at bun in the JS ecosystem like this. They are open source for now but also backed by VCs. They will have to make money at some point.

I have no interest in engaging with that product just to have a new pricing model thrown my way and disrupt everything.

ozgrakkurt|1 year ago

It is not even the for-profit thing, it is the VC, because they will be expect to make millions and millions off the project and that is not really possible with just support contracts and similar

Nemo_bis|1 year ago

You don't need to ask people to rely on your promises. Just make sure that you are not able to do a rug pull, and explain that. It's generally pretty easy (just don't require a CLA) but you can make it clearer. For example, clarify that you don't own everyone's copyright by writing a copyright notice which includes all of the project's contributors.

There are some practical suggestions at https://reuse.software/tutorial/

matsemann|1 year ago

What would you feel if you did all the work, but other companies made all the money by redistributing your software? Wouldn't you find that unmaintainable in the long run?